5 ms·

I think I'm pretty left-wing, and I agree with software freedom as a general rule - but I don't really understand the venom over the subject. We live in a world

I think I'm pretty left-wing, and I agree with software freedom as a general rule - but I don't really understand the venom over the subject. We live in a world where people of all ages regularly die because basic necessities are non-free. Software freedom is nice, but compared to every other political problem, kind of boring. In the end, the entire development of computers has been underwritten by massive corporations, the military-industrial complex, and to a large extent, the surveilance/telecoms hybrid that spawned companies like AT&T. I don't really see where being extremely punctilious about software freedom wins you in this context. There's no such thing as a free computer - the concept is borderline absurd, and even if it was possible, you're still using a free computer in a world that's largely characterized by tyranny, which is also absurd.

mnm1 8y ago
Software freedom, as defined here and used by RMS has nothing whatsoever to do with the cost of software. It refers to the four freedoms of software (https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/basics/4freedoms.en.html https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/basics/4freedoms.en.html). The right to basic necessities is actually a freedom everyone in the US outside those convicted has. The fact that those necessities cost money is tangential in a discussion of freedom just like the cost of developing software is mostly tangential. This isn't a discussion about cost. Or as fsf puts it, free as in freedom not free as in beer. There is indeed such thing as a free computer running free software that respects the four freedoms above. They are getting harder to find but they do exist and one could easily build and run one. It will cost money however, but as I said that's tangential almost to the point of being irrelevant in a discussion of software freedom.
- pasabagi 8y ago
  I understand they mean free as in freedom. I also think that if you exclude the 'fact that ... necessities cost money' from the concept of freedom, you end up with a pretty poor concept. But that's not really the issue at hand here. The issue is, if you have a 'free' device in a society that is largely based upon the absence of freedom, it's ultimately a fetish - in the magical-thinking sense. And honestly, if we were in a society that was substantially free, the FSF would never have been needed in the first place.
  - quadrangle 8y ago
    I think you're getting at utilitarianism versus some idea like Kant's categorical imperative. From an idealistic standpoint, RMS's views are consistent and sensible, honorable even. But from a utilitarian view (which I support incidentally), we evaluate the actual real-world consequences of each decision. In that light, RMS's overall concerns still hold up completely but his emphasis on each person individually rejecting all non-free software uncompromisingly is non-utilitarian.
    - pasabagi 8y ago
      I guess consequentialist v deonotological would be another way of framing it. That all said, my suspicion is that most people that go hard deontological essentially do so because they care more about their own moral purity than the state of the world. And, if you want to look at what happens when deonotological ethics are the norm, just look at medieval europe.
      - quadrangle 8y ago
        In the case of RMS, I find it extremely clear that he cares exponentially more about the state of the world than about his own moral purity.

mnm1 8y ago

Software freedom, as defined here and used by RMS has nothing whatsoever to do with the cost of software. It refers to the four freedoms of software (https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/basics/4freedoms.en.html https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/basics/4freedoms.en.html). The right to basic necessities is actually a freedom everyone in the US outside those convicted has. The fact that those necessities cost money is tangential in a discussion of freedom just like the cost of developing software is mostly tangential. This isn't a discussion about cost. Or as fsf puts it, free as in freedom not free as in beer. There is indeed such thing as a free computer running free software that respects the four freedoms above. They are getting harder to find but they do exist and one could easily build and run one. It will cost money however, but as I said that's tangential almost to the point of being irrelevant in a discussion of software freedom.

pasabagi 8y ago
I understand they mean free as in freedom. I also think that if you exclude the 'fact that ... necessities cost money' from the concept of freedom, you end up with a pretty poor concept. But that's not really the issue at hand here. The issue is, if you have a 'free' device in a society that is largely based upon the absence of freedom, it's ultimately a fetish - in the magical-thinking sense. And honestly, if we were in a society that was substantially free, the FSF would never have been needed in the first place.
- quadrangle 8y ago
  I think you're getting at utilitarianism versus some idea like Kant's categorical imperative. From an idealistic standpoint, RMS's views are consistent and sensible, honorable even. But from a utilitarian view (which I support incidentally), we evaluate the actual real-world consequences of each decision. In that light, RMS's overall concerns still hold up completely but his emphasis on each person individually rejecting all non-free software uncompromisingly is non-utilitarian.
  - pasabagi 8y ago
    I guess consequentialist v deonotological would be another way of framing it. That all said, my suspicion is that most people that go hard deontological essentially do so because they care more about their own moral purity than the state of the world. And, if you want to look at what happens when deonotological ethics are the norm, just look at medieval europe.
    - quadrangle 8y ago
      In the case of RMS, I find it extremely clear that he cares exponentially more about the state of the world than about his own moral purity.